Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the tool returns specific counts and token expiry info, and explicitly notes 'Requires a paid plan,' which is not in the annotations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but given the readOnlyHint and the tool's simple nature, the description adds sufficient behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and the key metrics, and the second sentence adds the optional filter and the paid-plan requirement. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema (which presumably defines the return structure). The description covers the main purpose and metrics, but it leaves the meaning of 'windowDays' ambiguous and does not clarify whether the post counts are within the selected window or overall. It also doesn't specify the scope of 'draft count' (e.g., all drafts or drafts within a period). Given the output schema exists, the description is adequate but has notable gaps that could lead to misinterpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It explains 'platform' as a filter ('Optionally filter by platform'), but it does not mention 'windowDays' at all. The schema provides enums and a default, but the description does not clarify that windowDays controls the time range for the post counts or other metrics. With two parameters and one unexplained, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get an account-health summary across all connected social accounts' and enumerates specific metrics (connected-account count, scheduled/published/failed post counts, draft count, tokens expiring). This is distinct from siblings like list_connected_accounts (which only lists accounts) and get_channel_analytics (which focuses on channel-level analytics). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates well.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: for an overall health snapshot across accounts, optionally filtered by platform. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, there is no note like 'use get_channel_analytics for per-channel details' or 'use list_connected_accounts for just the account list.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it meets the minimum but lacks clear routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.